K.R.RAIZA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Details Of Orders Of Assessment Etc. Are Stated In The Following Table:

reassessment set in motion under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act, the re-computation of return etc is illegal and unauthorized. 3.1 The other heads of the income of assessee scrutinized relate to the purchase of land at Sreerange, Maharastra. The assessing authority in the assessment order recorded the following findings: “1. The lease agreement

K.R. RAZIYA, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: This Court Under Section 260A Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’). The Details Of Orders Of Assessment Etc. Are Stated In The Following Table:

reassessment set in motion under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act, the re-computation of return etc is illegal and unauthorized. 3.1 The other heads of the income of assessee scrutinized relate to the purchase of land at Sreerange, Maharastra. The assessing authority in the assessment order recorded the following findings: “1. The lease agreement

K.M. FATHIMA, vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

reassessment set in motion under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act, the re- computation of return etc, is illegal and unauthorised. ITA Nos.67/2018, 74/2018, 66/2018, 76/2018, 53/2018, 80/2018 -10- 2.2 The Assessing Authority answered the Principal objection of the assessee namely that the ‘Shelter’ searched by Revenue did not exclusively belong to the assessee’s husband

K.M. FATHIMA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

reassessment set in motion under Section 153A read with Section 153C of the Act, the re- computation of return etc, is illegal and unauthorised. ITA Nos.67/2018, 74/2018, 66/2018, 76/2018, 53/2018, 80/2018 -10- 2.2 The Assessing Authority answered the Principal objection of the assessee namely that the ‘Shelter’ searched by Revenue did not exclusively belong to the assessee’s husband

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), vs. MS/.LOVE IN ACTION SOCIETY NALANCHIRA,

Appeal is allowed as

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM

reassessment direction issued to the Assessing Officer is per se illegal. The issue noted by the CIT (Exemptions) arises under Section 11(1)d and the utilization of corpus donation for revenue expenditure allegedly incurred by the assessee. The Tribunal, in the order under appeal, examined the circumstances discernible from the material brought on record by the assessee before

MOHAMMED SHERIEF, vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

4. The assessee is a resident of Karunagapally and engaged in the business of sale of vegetables. One E. Shamsudeen is the father of the assessee. On 02.08.2006, a search under Section 132 of ITA Nos.2/2019, 5/2019, 6/2019, 8/2019, 7/2019 -8- the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at the business premises of E. Shamsudeen was carried

MOHAMMED SHERIEF vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

4. The assessee is a resident of Karunagapally and engaged in the business of sale of vegetables. One E. Shamsudeen is the father of the assessee. On 02.08.2006, a search under Section 132 of ITA Nos.2/2019, 5/2019, 6/2019, 8/2019, 7/2019 -8- the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) at the business premises of E. Shamsudeen was carried

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(EXEMPTIONS) vs. M/S CHOICE FOUNDATION

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI

4. I have gone through the submissions made by the assessee during the course of the proceedings u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act and I find that the assessee has not adduced any convincing reply to the proposed revision under section 263 of the Income Tax Act. As already mentioned, It is a voluntary contribution and, therefore, income

KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

4. The assessee/Kerala Cricket Association is playing the fourth test match by filing the batch of appeals in this Court. The learned Senior Counsel have worked up very keenly ITA 37/12 ITA 38/12 ITA 39/12, ITA 40/12 and ITA 42/12 8 to play a test match, but the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Asst.Commissioner of Income

KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

4. The assessee/Kerala Cricket Association is playing the fourth test match by filing the batch of appeals in this Court. The learned Senior Counsel have worked up very keenly ITA 37/12 ITA 38/12 ITA 39/12, ITA 40/12 and ITA 42/12 8 to play a test match, but the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Asst.Commissioner of Income

KERALA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, KCA COMPLEX, SASTHAMKOVIL ROAD, vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

4. The assessee/Kerala Cricket Association is playing the fourth test match by filing the batch of appeals in this Court. The learned Senior Counsel have worked up very keenly ITA 37/12 ITA 38/12 ITA 39/12, ITA 40/12 and ITA 42/12 8 to play a test match, but the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Asst.Commissioner of Income

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

4. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of tyres. The assessee since had business loss in excess to the paid up capital, moved an application under Sec.15 of the Sick Industries (Special ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 13 Provisions) Act 1985 (for short 'Act 1985') before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, vs. PTL ENTERPRISES LIMITED,

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

4. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of tyres. The assessee since had business loss in excess to the paid up capital, moved an application under Sec.15 of the Sick Industries (Special ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 13 Provisions) Act 1985 (for short 'Act 1985') before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR

THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. PREMIER TYRES LTD.

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

4. The assessee is a company engaged in the manufacture and sale of tyres. The assessee since had business loss in excess to the paid up capital, moved an application under Sec.15 of the Sick Industries (Special ITA Nos.757/2009 and batch cases 13 Provisions) Act 1985 (for short 'Act 1985') before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TVM vs. M/S HOTEL SUN BEAM, ATTAKULANGARA TVM

Appeal is dismissed as indicated above

Bench: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI,HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS

reassessment made by the Assessing Officer treating the status as AOP as against the assessee’s claim as registered firm is in order in view of the legal position under Abkari Act ITA NO. 197 OF 2009 -3- and Income tax Act? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in the light